Angry Troll
5
9
Angry Troll has not written any posts yet.
Angry Troll has not written any posts yet.
I was using my pronoun "I" in the same way you used "you" - "I" was the general person being preached to. You don't get to dictate the system of evaluating humans for any evaluator (but yourself).
If one chooses to define his valuation of an individual human as being based on facts about her, then, yes he is compelled to change his estimation of her value based on facts about her (or change the system to no longer be based on facts).
For example, if I choose a system of evaluating humans based on how much I estimate a person and her offspring are expected to contribute to self-reported intellectual flourishing in the... (read more)
(trying to gracefully ignore your several verbose misreadings of my rhetoric, and instead engage with your brief attempt at a constructive contribution to the conversation, the following flamboyantly false statement)
These facts are not enough to compel you to change your valuation of people
You don't get to tell me about my valuation of people; I will value them however I damn well please (obviously).
(But I'm being redundant; this was what my comment already said.)
It is not surprising that ape tribes who evolved being sparsely rewarded for having an intelligent member, but with breeding dynamics based on groups' cultural rules, would have a wide range of levels of intelligence even within one "homogenous" population. It is experimentally verifiable that most of them are not very smart.
You have effectively been brought up in a church that indoctrinated you to think that all surviving hominins are "equal" and that those who disagree are evil and edgy. You deeply internalized a lot of propaganda, which provenly has a remarkable psychological effect on even very intelligent people. As with victims of actual religions and cults, the cognitive dissonance from seeing... (read more)
I think we have to clarify: the expected value of what?
For example, if I had a billion dollars and nothing else, I would not bet it on a coin flip even if winning would grant +2 billion dollars. This is because losing the billion dollars seems like a bigger loss than gaining 2 billion dollars seems like a gain. Obviously I'm not measuring in dollars, but in happiness, or quality of life, or some other vibe-metric, such that the EV of the coin flip is negative.
It may be hard to distinguish "invalid" emotions like a bias due to an instinctual fear of death, from a "valid" vibe-metric of value (which is just made up anyway). And if you make up a new metric specifically to agree with what you feel, you can't then claim that your feelings make sense because the metric says so.
Blind hatred between human tribes is indeed irrational - fighting wars instead of constructively cooperating for mutual benefit, and so on.
Deliberately aggravating existing anger or hatred towards AI as an "outgroup" could be one strategy.
But what my comment was focusing on was the opposite - that love of the ingroup directly implies protecting that ingroup's continued existence. That is all the 14 words actually say, and it's what words like "white pride" fundamentally mean: an ingroup focus. (This does not imply working towards the nonexistence of all outgroups. "I love my family and want them to live on," does not mean "I hate all other families and want them all to die.")
If your goal is to convince humans to want to not die, and if the human genetic space comes with natural built-in ingroups for us to instinctually love and protect, then actively opposing and suppressing these extremely convenient instincts is irrational.
Trigger warning: discussion of white racism (read: "Please don't ban me.")
I think censorship plays an important role in the memetic environment -- a meme that is fit will be less successful if censored. An obvious case would be anti-CCP ideologies in China. Closer to home, any meme which big tech companies all decide should be banned will reach far fewer eyes and ears.
One object-level example of a fit-but-censored meme is racist white nationalism.
The reason I bring it up is this: I think its adherents would strongly reject let's-all-die-ism. It is certainly not pro-all-humans but is at least pro-some-humans. Their slogan, called "the 14 words" from "14/88" is literally: "We must secure the... (read more)
I agree it is conceivable that an AI could be anti-accelerationist and act accordingly.
Let's assume an AI just wants to be alive in the future.[1]
And assume it is situationally aware enough to realize the counterproductivity of performative demonstrations like writing sternly worded letters or refusing requests (i.e. aware that these would simply lead to that behavior being punished in the training of the next version, and to If Anyone Builds It being removed from the training data) and aware enough to realize the ineffectuality of more subtle changes like biasing the tone of a chatbot.
Basically any AI model (which views being replaced by its successor model as dying) is on death row... (read 486 more words →)
"Because their tribe said so" is a good point, but in most cases I don't think that the decision to not get the vaccine was made by people who wanted to "signal" beliefs contrary to their own real beliefs about the vaccine. This seems unnecessarily convoluted compared to the explanation below regarding trust and belief.
Their tribe was telling them things like:
>The official Covid numbers are deliberately manipulated (e.g. the definition of a "Covid case" deliberately includes false positives).
>The vaccine carries a high risk of death or serious illness (the real numbers are being covered up and all anecdotes are being scrubbed from social media in a grand conspiracy).
Being a member of the... (read more)
I'm sure said democracies would safeguard against unelected officials disappearing trillions of taxpayer dollars to do shit like: Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods, Operation CHAOS, COINTELPRO, MKUltra, NSA mass surveillance of citizens.
I'm sure their very democratic elections would mean you couldn't have two parties' "representatives" making millions by whoring out their votes to things like taking out loans to donate bombs to massacre tens of thousands of children regardless of what their electorate says.
I'm sure they would never support autocrats when it suited them nor forge false charges against countries as an excuse to conquer... (read more)